Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Hey guys, just curious as to everyones thoughts on the matter as it has come up both on here several times in other threads and at my FLGS. Now one thing I have advocated is that Imperial Armies are one of if not the strongest faction in the game thanks to the fact that they have access to over half the books and units in the entire game. The tactical flexibility afforded to them is unheard of in any of the other books and can create some seriously nasty and rough combinations to fight against, almost everyone at my FLGS agrees with that sentiment. However for some reason, particularly on here, that being able to have access to that much flexibility is a bad thing or something that they are embarrassed about. I am just curious, why? I would think that being able to mix and match your army or design it to deal with any situation you come across is a good thing and I know several other armies would love to have that kind of flexibility. So I ask you guys, why are you not a fan of it? This is not a flame thread or anything like that, I am genuinely curious and interested in hearing other peoples thoughts. Thanks for your posts and insight!

Not as cheesy as Eldar...

Because when the IoM basically functions as a single codex all anyone is going to do is pick the best units from the 16 or so different factions and then combine them to make them even more broken (such as skitari in drop pods, or cent-star)

It depends on how, why, and with whom you play.

I've got about 5,000 points in Space Wolves, and only Space Wolves. I've played one-on-one games, but I've also allied with Tau, Eldar, IF, White Scars, and DA armies played by friends. I've played against Tau, Eldar, IF, DA, Chaos Space Marines, Orks, and Necron. Every one of those battles have been with a group of friends, and most of us have been friends for 20 years or so - and we've played various table-top games and various pen-and-paper RPGs over those years. Gaming is as much for socializing as anything else, though we also take the games pretty seriously. Very seriously, sometimes, but that's not generally how or why we play. If someone ran a list like the Thunderdome list that just won NOVA (Space Wolves/DA min-maxed to within an inch of their lives), it would be . There would flaring tempers and bad blood. On the other hand, for actual competitive tournaments, good on that guy for coming up with that list... but good luck finding anyone who's going to play you at an FLGS or a match among friends (unless the opponent also has a range of models and min-max'es the bujeezus out of his list).

If you're hearing people talk about it like it's a bad thing, they're probably either a.) social gamers who don't want to play that way and don't want to play AGAINST people who play that way, probably rolling their eyes at the very thought of running that sort of list... or b.) people who min-max and play competitively but aren't as good at it and got beaten, now filled with sour grapes.

Pretty much what zbg97 said - I love my free-allying, even though I almost never actually make use of it, because it lets me put together fun lists when I do feel like it... but I can see why someone might object to a crazy minmax list.

The thing is, other factions can do a crazy minmax list without allies. The only faction that I can see really having a problem with it is CSM, because... well, really, they should have access to just as much stuff as the loyalists.

It can be used to make great fluffy lists, so that is good.
In general you should bring leave any kind of optimised list at home when you go to play a casual game, (make sure to talk to your opponent before the game! Can't stress that enough) that goes for IoM, Eldar and any other factions. Leave those lists for tournaments.
The only way I could see a reason to complain about this is if combined IoM lists completely dominated tournaments, which they don't. Eldar has more cheese than the entire IoM put together.

Sure, its a great thing...for Imperial armies. As far as game balance goes? Tyranids lack low AP weapons or decent Psychic powers. Necrons lack psychic powers in general, and have low initiative. Orks lack good armor saves, good psychic powers, rerollable shooting, ext. Tau lack decent CC capability.

Seems fair, right? Every army must have a weakness, right? Well, Skitarii and Cult Mechanicus don't have reliable transports (Or, any, actually. Right?). So they have to walk to their destinations. They also lack decent CC effectiveness. AM also lack decent CC. Grey Knights also have very few decent units (and few units in general). But does this matter at all?

No.

Blood Angels can take 6 Fast Attack with a certain detachment, so 6 Drop Pods for those Skitarri and Cult Mechanicus. Hole plugged. AM and Admech need decent CC? They have an easily allied Superheavy, the Imperial Knight. Do any of those armies need psychic help? Well, Tigurius, Draigo, Inquisition, ext. You can take it all.

Necrons can't effectively plug holes. Neither can Orks, Tau, or Tyranids. Eldar have no holes that need plugging, but they can still get more toys from allying with Dark Eldar, making Dark Eldar essentially a supplement for Eldar.

The reason it's frowned upon is that some armies are stuck with playing how they were meant to be played, and the poster children of GW get to use literally anything they want, whether or not it fits the fluff. It comes down to a matter of fairness, but also the glaring imbalance it presents is an issue as well.

The possibility to ally is great, but it's also an excuse for not making armies balanced. My SoB is probably the only Imperial faction left that doesn't have flyers or AA in their Codex, and since I have the option of allying it in it doesn't need fixing. Besides, if I buy those things from another Codex I'll have to buy a Codex, HQ, Troops... More sales for GW.

Yes, I think GW sees the allies option as an opportunity for sales instead of a fluffy thing.

Generally most choices with IoM allies are pretty ok, but certain things like Azraels giant invincible Blob of 4++ guard or drop podding in skitarii both makes no sense and is pretty OP

 gmaleron wrote:
Hey guys, just curious as to everyones thoughts on the matter as it has come up both on here several times in other threads and at my FLGS. Now one thing I have advocated is that Imperial Armies are one of if not the strongest faction in the game thanks to the fact that they have access to over half the books and units in the entire game. The tactical flexibility afforded to them is unheard of in any of the other books and can create some seriously nasty and rough combinations to fight against, almost everyone at my FLGS agrees with that sentiment. However for some reason, particularly on here, that being able to have access to that much flexibility is a bad thing or something that they are embarrassed about. I am just curious, why? I would think that being able to mix and match your army or design it to deal with any situation you come across is a good thing and I know several other armies would love to have that kind of flexibility. So I ask you guys, why are you not a fan of it? This is not a flame thread or anything like that, I am genuinely curious and interested in hearing other peoples thoughts. Thanks for your posts and insight!

There's a few reasons for the frustration.

First and foremost, armies are still designed as self-contained factions. They have advantages and limitations that ostensibly make them unique. Deathwing for example plays on the "ultra elite but always massively outnumbered" deal. IG have lots of shooting but terrible CC capabilities.

What allies do is allow you to plug capability holes. For example, trade one squad of Deathwing Terminators in your DA army for 35 Guardsmen with a grip of heavy weapons and suddenly the numbers aren't much of an issue but you still retain most of the "big elite" punch.

Likewise, you can also take advantage of unintended synergies, like having the DA power field that gives a 4+ +Invul apply to that IG blob above (not sure if that particular piece of wargear still exists in the newest DA book, but it did a couple weeks ago). and then instead of having 35 dudes with effectively no saves (which ostensibly is there to balance their great numbers), they've got 4++ invuls, whereas the wargear really only was a minor boost to Terminator 5++ invul saves before.

This ultimately dilutes or destroys the unique style of these armies, and makes them perform in ways that really weren't intended, leading to massive game balance issues.

The above are just really mild examples, but they illustrate the problem.


Also, of equal importance, is the fluff abominations that come out of some of these things. The winning NOVA Open list that was composed of Space Wolves and Dark Angels acting as Battle Brothers and working off a closely integrated deathstar unit, when these two factions have considerable animosity towards each other. Or even more absurd stuff like Skitarii using Blood Angels drop pods when such are supposedly not usable by non-astartes without death or major injury (and when the Mechanicus has some major beef with the Blood Angels over unsanctioned vehicle patterns they aren't sharing).

it's more so the issue of fairness. There are fluffy reasons why certain armies would work together, but even if there aren't you could make a reason why they do. For the most part anyways.

But we really don't see that. Only armies of the same species can share vehicles and be led by certain characters. IOM and Eldar/De being the ones that stand out. For IOM it's all just free game despite what fluff says.

So when making an IoM list you get to look through a dozen books and the majority of FW options to figure out all the swag you want to bring. Not to mention all the Fortifications being IoM based and matching your army perfectly.

It gives you so many options that other armies just don't even have. It punishes people for not playing the favored options.

It's viewed as a bad thing because it dilutes the individuality of armies, and creates a staggering array of options to cherry pick from; options which are usually utilized to create all manner of deathstar units. They are hated because they are sometimes unfluffy and almost always complicated, they are tolerated and half-heartedly defended because it's the only way for some Imperial armies to be competitive.

The strangest aspect to me is how with all the talk of narrative forging they gutted the ally table of the varying levels of alliance between IoM factions.

 CrownAxe wrote:
Because when the IoM basically functions as a single codex all anyone is going to do is pick the best units from the 16 or so different factions and then combine them to make them even more broken (such as skitari in drop pods, or cent-star)

Then break the meta and run guys with no armor saves for a change.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
Because when the IoM basically functions as a single codex all anyone is going to do is pick the best units from the 16 or so different factions and then combine them to make them even more broken (such as skitari in drop pods, or cent-star)

Then break the meta and run guys with no armor saves for a change.

I already do (daemons and renegades)

But Cent-stars also get TL-hurricane bolters and their grav still wounds on a 6+ rerollable even against no armor. They aren't exactly bad at dealing with weak horde units either.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
Because when the IoM basically functions as a single codex all anyone is going to do is pick the best units from the 16 or so different factions and then combine them to make them even more broken (such as skitari in drop pods, or cent-star)

Then break the meta and run guys with no armor saves for a change.

There's not much that has *no* armor save, and it's not like Grav centurions can't be ineffective against 5+ save units either, a full squad of Grav Cents with hurricane bolters will on average wipe a 30man IG blob in one round of shooting, even with 5+ cover they'll probably kill over 20 of 'em, and that's before things like Prescience or the like

If the Imperials were put back into the box, the allying wouldn't be so bad.

For example, there is no way that Space Wolfs should have above average Psykers - they are regular SMs, should be a clear step below Ksons & GKs, which themselves should be a step below Eldar. However, OPing the Space Wolf Pskyers into the top tier creates a ripple effect. Nerf the Woofs back to where they should be, and the problem of taking Woofs in an un-fluffy way disappears.

Basically, GW losing the plot on what each faction is supposed to be, and then allowing any IoM army to take anything pretty much ruins the entire thing from a Fluff standpoint.

But then 40k was never designed as a balanced game, so there is that.

Doesn't the SW fluff say that their psykers are special and better then other chapters?

I'm sure they say that, but the amount of Mary Stu in the Woofs is still nonsense.

As a competitive gamer, I feel CrownAxe gets the crux of it:

Because when the IoM basically functions as a single codex all anyone is going to do is pick the best units from the 16 or so different factions and then combine them to make them even more broken (such as skitari in drop pods, or cent-star)

If it were simply about taking only the best units from other armies, then that is available to all armies if you're willing to deal with the CTA/AOC rules. But its more than that: its the ability to join other units, share your USR's, ride in each other's transports, and cast psychic buffs on the other units.

From a Fluff perspective, this sometimes makes sense (most IoM units probably work better with each other than any non-IoM unit) but sometimes doesn't (various SM chapters have well-known animosity or downright hatred towards each other), and anyone with a bit of imagination can come up with reasons for CTA allies to fight together (the codices are full of stories about Necrons and BA fighting Nids together; or Tau 'brainwashing' guard to fight with them).

From a balance perspective, it is horrible. For a reason completely unrelated to game mechanics, SOME armies get VASTLY more options in their armies that work together PERFECTLY, to directly counter weaknesses in the original force or create combos which were not intended. It is literally impossible for the current points system to be able to accurately reflect the power of putting Draigo with centurions, or giving hit+run/stubborn/4++/FNP/invisibility/etc to x unit that wasn't meant to have it. Other armies (for no apparent game balance reason) are prevented from accessing these game-changing abilities.

It's even more jarring that this can and has changed from edition to edition. Two years ago, Space Marines + Tau was a perfectly acceptable and 'fluffy' Battle Brother combination that was rocking the tournament circuit. It kind of puts the 'its for fluff' defense to shame when its obvious the fluff has been re-written at the drop of a hat to make the allies table a little bit easier to read.

Makumba wrote:
Doesn't the SW fluff say that their psykers are special and better then other chapters?

It says they think their psykers aren't psykers, actually.

Makumba wrote:Doesn't the SW fluff say that their psykers are special and better then other chapters?

Furyou Miko wrote:

Makumba wrote:
Doesn't the SW fluff say that their psykers are special and better then other chapters?

It says they think their psykers aren't psykers, actually.

Yeah, it just says they draw their power from the native spirits of Fenris rather than from the Warp like other psykers. It doesn't say anything about being more powerful or not, nor is it clear whether it is actually true or just Space Wolf beliefs.

I can see why it's necessary and why it's a bad thing. I really prefer "pure" armies over conglomerate armies that are a mishmash of two or more different armies, but at the same time, it makes sense that imperial armies can take imperial guard allies. Though Chaos should be able to, too.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Makumba wrote:Doesn't the SW fluff say that their psykers are special and better then other chapters?

Furyou Miko wrote:

Makumba wrote:
Doesn't the SW fluff say that their psykers are special and better then other chapters?

It says they think their psykers aren't psykers, actually.

Yeah, it just says they draw their power from the native spirits of Fenris rather than from the Warp like other psykers. It doesn't say anything about being more powerful or not, nor is it clear whether it is actually true or just Space Wolf beliefs.

Well, it's actually just that they ~believe~ they draw their power from Fenris. The fact that their Psychic Phase works exactly like anyone else's Psychic Phase, and that they use some of the same Disciplines as anyone else is pretty clearly saying that their Psykers are Psykers.

That said, I'm not sure that Space Wolves have "above average Psykers" - Rune Priests are, by default, ML1 Psykers who can be upgraded to ML2. There's one ML3 HQ option. That pretty much ~is~ the average, not above-average. Though, "there is no way that Space Wolfs should have above average Psykers" is purely subjective, in the first place.

They have advantages in Denying, true, but those were actually nerfed in the new Codex, not made more OP...

I like it as long as it looks like a decent army and not just like a RPG party that hired some knights and scouts.
It finally gives me the flexibility to finally create the army that I really want to play instead of the space marine or IG armies of the past.
Playing a rogue trader force, a planetary defence force or radical inquisitors was never so easy and I love it.

Why is it a bad thing?

Because sometimes I just want to field my Guard without fielding my Knight Warden or how I always want to field my Skitarii without the Flesh Tearers' Taxi Service.

Not only do I like to actually field my armies that way, I would like for people on here to shut the hell up about how the armies are broken/OP without understanding that it's a simple fix to change 99% of these issues.

Remove the Ability for Armies to Take Dedicated Transports as Fast Attack Choices.

Notice that I'm saying "Dedicated Transports". I don't mean things like Land Raiders or Valkyries or Falcons--things which traditionally have been associated with a slot purchase to begin with.
I mean things like Raiders, Wave Serpents, Chimera, Rhinos, Razorbacks, and Drop Pods.